Sunday, April 12, 2015

Libertarian Thinking Reveals

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune self-identifies as a libertarian, so his hesitation on Rand Paul is instructive in a commentary reprinted in the Akron Beacon Journal today. 
In fact, exposing ourselves to libertarian thinking is usually good for us, as individuals and as a body politic, since only libertarians preserve in 2015 aspects of our framers perspectives on politics that are too disruptive or uncomfortable for either Democratic or Republican party insiders to make salient.
Try this short quiz, called the World’s Shortest Political Quiz, created by libertarians and experience the category disrupting power of engaging with this perspective on politics. 
Chapman’s analysis of Rand Paul highlights both the ways that Paul will inject game-challenging ideas into any debate and the ways Paul has already moderated his views to reduce his disruptiveness (or, as some see it, to pander to constituencies who do not share his views). 
Chapman starts by listing his libertarian credentials as a ‘strong preference for free markets, civil liberties, personal autonomy, limited government and a foreign policy of restraint,’ in order to conclude that he…
‘…should not be a tough sell for Paul. He sounds pretty libertarian when he says, in reference to the National Security Agency, “the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business.” He shows a refreshing open-mindedness on criminal justice by envisioning an America where “any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”'
Then Chapman notes that Paul’s audacity includes statements designed to court new voting blocks, to broaden his appeal by attempting to expand the scope of libertarian thinking to include ideas Chapman argues are less about being libertarian and more about winning an election.  He notes, approvingly, that Paul challenges far right Christians on the one hand, but then panders to them on the other.
‘…He dared to tell a Faith and Freedom Coalition audience, “I can recall no utterance of Jesus in favor of war or any acts of aggression.” 
But Paul sometimes sounds anything but libertarian. He rejects same-sex marriage, which he attributes to a “moral crisis.” He denounced the DREAM Act, which offered citizenship to some young foreigners brought here without authorization as children, as “the Washington elitists’ roundabout way of giving amnesty to illegal immigrant students.”’
And then Chapman provides us with some analytical insights worth thinking about…in relation to Rand Paul, but also to help us better understand politics in general.  He concludes that the strategic posturing (bullshitting?) that he observes in Paul (which is not unique to Paul) is an attempt to ‘balance his commendable pronouncements with lamentable ones.’ 
For Paul, Jesus is the Prince of Peace and there really is an (unjustifiable) elite war on Christianity and needs to be a (justifiable) war on Islam.  Paul calls for deregulation and debt control by willfully misinterpreting both scientific and budgetary data—commendably standing for libertarian principles of limited government...framed lamentably to attract the attention of far right Republican activists.
Then another powerful insight occurs.
‘Paul’s casual regard for facts is an admission that the truth does not adequately vindicate his views.’
This is why both the liars and the bullshitters in (or seeking) power today are so dangerous.  This is why education matters.  It is not always easy, in an age where highly paid PR experts craft messages that mislead by design, to sort out who to believe. 
So, Chapman hits on the bedrock principle we cannot lose sight of:  when we do see elites demonstrating a ‘casual regard for the facts’ this tells us something important about their enterprise and their willingness to be phony despite the consequences for democratic decision making…and we need to make sure this is salient in our evaluations of elites.  It tells us that the data—whatever it is, whatever it says—does not adequately support the perspective being articulated.
Chapman closes out this exemplary commentary by noting that wisdom, meaning here good leadership in a democracy, is grounded in our capacity to challenge our own assumptions as vigorously as we challenge others, particularly as new information becomes available (which is all the time in politics). 
It is ironic that democracy depends on good leaders who are willing and able to see conflicts as the crucible, engaging alternative perspectives with curiosity and creativity, with the open mind and open heart of one driven to understand the real world we all live in together.
‘Paul’s casual regard for facts is an admission that the truth does not adequately vindicate his views. It also reflects a tendency, common to the fervent ideologues, of ignoring evidence that undermines cherished beliefs. 

There is nothing wrong with adopting a broad outlook that incorporates certain basic principles for their inherent value or practical utility. Ideology can be a useful framework for making sense of how the world works. 

The trouble comes when it hardens into dogma. Wisdom requires a continual willingness to question one’s assumptions in light of new information. The alternative is what Karl Rove celebrated when he mocked a White House colleague for being “in what we call the reality-based community,” which Rove says is made up of those who imagine that “solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” 

Paul has never given the impression that his convictions are susceptible to refutation. He comes across not as someone whose judicious study of discernible reality led him to his political philosophy, but as someone who first found a political philosophy and then learned only enough to confirm his chosen views.’

No comments:

Post a Comment